Nope. I have only 8 fingers, too, but I have not taken that number into consideration of the trinity, either.
jd
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Have you considered the temple menorah too?
>
> David Miller.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 11:32 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language"
>
>
> I don't use apocalytic literature to construct my doctrine. I do have an
> answer and it has to do with my view of the use of numbers in the Bible. I
> do not care to have an exchange with you concerning this, however.
>
> I am currently working on several other [biblical] issues and do not have
> the time.
>
> jd
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] RY.ORG>
>
> > The problem with the word "Trinity" is that it assume Three. What do you
> > do
> > with texts that speak about the Seven Spirits of God?
> >
> > David Miller.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 9:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language"
> >
> >
> > I do not agree. "Trinity" is as much a translation of the concept of
> > "divine essence" as is "godhead" but for theological and contextual
> > reasons. Call it philosophy if you will. The inclusion of "trinity" is a
> > sound choice if it , in fact, arises from a point of truth. Equivalency
> > is a word that figures into my discussion. I am sure you unde rstand the
> > implication.
> >
> > jd
& gt; >
> > -------------- Original message --------------
> > From: "David Miller"
> >
> > > The word "Trinity" is not a translation, nor is it a transliteration. It
> > > is
> > > a word of philosophers, a word constructed by theologians, and it is a
> > > philosophically loaded word. The various words of the Greek language
> > > that
> > > have been translated "Godhead" have at their root the word "theos," and
> > > therefore, "Godhead" is an appropriate translation whereas "Trinity" is
> > > not.
> > > The root for "three" is not found in the Greek language for this word.
> > >
> > > David Miller
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 4:08 PM
> &g t; > Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lan ce and "biblical language"
> > >
> > >
> > > Your response has nothing to do with my comments, near as I can see.
> > > My point is this: every English word in our bible is "added " to the
> > > original text. so you like godhead" and I like "trinity." They are both
> > > translations of the orgiinal word and/or thought.
> > >
> > > jd
> > >
> > > -------------- Original message --------------
> > > From: Judy Taylor
> > >
> > > Here we go again - And who is the one who denied staking everything on
> > > translational and Gk
> > > arguments - very, very, recently?. judyt
> > >
> > > On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 14:54:47 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > >
> > > Here is an approximation of the [NT] biblical language"
> > >
> > > gar nomoz tou pneumatoz thz swhzev Cristy
> > >
> > > All other words [in [English] translation] are "non-biblical."
> > > ; "Incarnate" is no less a "biblical word" than "in the flesh" -- nor
> > > "trinity " in the place of "Godhead."
> > >
> > > Our translations are copies of the original tex t (as best as we can
> > > reconstruct that text) . The Latin Vulgate has the same place in
> > > biblical
> > > history in terms of type and quality as does the more literal of the
> > > English
> > > translations.
> > >
> > > To argue without end over "Godhead" verses "Trinity" is argue about
> > > nothing. I have just as much authority to read "trinity" as someone has
> > > to read "godhead" or "divine nature."
> > >
> > > jd
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------- Original message --------------
> > > From: "Lance Muir"
> > >
> > > On employing 'non-biblical' terminology when speaking of WHO Jesus is:
> > > Insofar as the language one chooses accurately reflects the subject
> > > under
> & gt; > discussion it may be viewed as legitimate, helpful and, even
> necessary.
> > >
> > > May I ask that anyone responding to the above take the time to outline
> > > their
> > > own position on this.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Judy Taylor
> > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> > > Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> > > Sent: January 14, 2006 08:53
> > > Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS
> > > NOT
> > > DIVINE
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't know about all that L ance. What exact part of him are you
> > > calling
> > > "his humanity" Is it the body or the soul?
> > > Also what exactly is a "trinitarian nature?" These are brand new terms
> > > someone has come up with. Could this
> > > be called "adding to the Word of Truth?"
> > >
> > > On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 07:39:32 -0500 "Lance Muir"
> > > writes:
> > > Judy, rightly IMO, has oft spoken of the disconnect that may take place
> > > between theologizing and godliness. Conversely, as illustrated in this
> > > post
> > > by Bill, a more thoroughgoing teaching, along with the apprehension, of
> > > the
> > > Trinitarian Nature of God ought to issue in that which Jt speaks of.
> > > (i.e.
> > > godliness)
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Messag e -----
> > > From: Taylor
> > > To : TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> > > Sent: January 14, 2006 07:18
> > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] love and trinity
> > >
> > >
> > > BillT wrote: The oneness of God is therefore not a number nearly so much
> > > as
> > > it is a unity: the unifying
> > > love of God in koinonia -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
> > >
> > >
> > > DAVEH responds: Any room for individuals in that equation?..........The
> > > oneness of God is therefore........F ather, Son, Holy Spirit & Bill.
> > >
> > > Well, yes and no, DH. I am included in that circle of love in the way
> > > that
> > > Christ's humanity is included in that relationship. But as the humanity
> > > of
> > > Christ is not divine, neither am I divine. What I am is included in the
> > > humanity of the divine Christ and thus included in the et ernal
> > > fellowship
> > > and community of the Son with the Father in the Holy Spirit. And because
> > > of
> > > the inseparable union of the person of Christ, his humanity with h is
> > > divinity, I will forever be included in the loving union of the Trinity,
> > > the
> > > oneness of God.
> > >
> > > Good question, though,
> > >
> > > Bill
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Dave Hansen
> > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:41 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] love and trinity
> & gt; >
> > >
> > >
> > > .........Does that work in your theological paradigm?
> > >
> > > Taylor wrote:
> > > Moreover, John, if God is love and God is also a singularity, like many
> > > people think of "one" in the statement "God is one," then the greatest
> > > human
> > > _expression_ of that love would be narcissism: extreme self love; for that
> > > would be to exemplify the love of God. Instead, God is "one" -- and has
> > > been
> > > from eternity -- precisely because of the other-centered love which
> > > exists
> > > between the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father in the Holy
> > > Spirit. The oneness of God is th erefore not a number nearly so much as
> > > it
> > > is
> > > a unity: the unifying
> > > love of God in koinonia -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
> > >
> > > Good insight, Dude, I mean Bish; you're on a roll.
> > >
> > > Bill
> > > -- > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > Dave Hansen
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > http://www.langlitz.co m
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > If you wish to receive
> > > things I find interesting,
> > > I maintain six email lists...
> > > JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
> > > STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > > dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is
> > > believed to be clean.
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
> > > know how
> > > you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
> > >
> > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you wi ll be unsubscribed. If you have a
> > > friend
> > > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
> & gt; > ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
> > > he will be subscribed.
> >
> > ----------
> > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
> > know how
> > you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
> >
> > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
> > friend
> > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
> > he will be subscribed.
>
> ----------
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how
> you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend
> who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
> he will be subscribed.
